Gamebred wrote: » Relying on Compubox really shows your ignorance regarding boxing absolutely tells no story of a fight complete waste of time.
wonderfullife wrote: » And yet half the world including boxing pundits were using Compubox to explain why Pacman beat Horn... THey're all ignorant too? Max Kellerman was citing them. He's ignorant?
Gamebred wrote: » Round 1 alone tells the story, it had Pac outlanding Horn, means **** all doesn't tell the tale of a fight and any regular boxing viewer knows this.
Deedsie wrote: » It's not ignorant. It's a selective way to look at the stats from a fight to aid an argument. Plenty of boxing people have referenced compu box in the past to discuss close fights. Would you call them ignorant?
Deedsie wrote: » You are also missing my point, I put it to you you wouldn't call a boxing person ignorant if they only used compu box to aid their argument as "ignorant" You are a taking a cheap shot at a McGregor fan in my opinion.
Gamebred wrote: » Using compubox as proof mayweather gets hit is absolute rubbish talk, hes been hit clean about 5 times in 20 years.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Sure Mosley alone hit him clean 5 times.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Never said that. Never implied that. In fact I said Mayweather will most likely school Conor if it gets past the third, that he'd would most likely win and that Conor only has a slim chance of victory. How the hell could that possibly sound like someone who believes experience and decades of training in a particular sport doesn't count for much? What you infer from my posts has little to do with the actual content of them so perhaps it would be best if you no longer replied to them? Good man yourself. If I thought that.... why would I say he only has a "slim chance" of victory? Again: you're not doing yourself any favours with these kind of replies as they are all just strawman arguments. That's three and I'm only half way through your post. You did the same in the AMA with JK. You're more interested in the sound of your own voice than actually paying attention to what people are saying to you. No, it's really not.... it's just the usual resorting to ad hominems whenever someone has no retort for an argument being made. That and strawmans are all you folks have. No, because he hasn't earned it on merit, just like this fight. If it did happen though......... I'd be equally as perplexed as I am that he got this fight (money being the motivating factor for all concerned of course) and in the lead up to his first match I would correct anyone that said he had to learn a whole "new set of skills" (given that he had played a decent level before) and then come match night I'd give him a "slim chance" of scoring, maybe a penalty would be his best hope but would suggest that it "highly unlikely" he'd scoring in open play. Wait, that's almost exactly what I'm saying about this fight.......... what a coincidence.
Sweet Science wrote: » You seem pretty logical about the fight so what was your original issue with the way I see the fight ?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Never said that. Never implied that. In fact I said Mayweather will most likely school Conor if it gets past the third, that he'd would most likely win and that Conor only has a slim chance of victory. How the hell could that possibly sound like someone who believes experience and decades of training in a particular sport doesn't count for much?
What you infer from my posts has little to do with the actual content of them so perhaps it would be best if you no longer replied to them? Good man yourself.
You did the same in the AMA with JK. You're more interested in the sound of your own voice than actually paying attention to what people are saying to you.
No, it's really not.... it's just the usual resorting to ad hominems whenever someone has no retort for an argument being made. That and strawmans are all you folks have.
No, because he hasn't earned it on merit, just like this fight. If it did happen though......... I'd be equally as perplexed as I am that he got this fight (money being the motivating factor for all concerned of course) and in the lead up to his first match I would correct anyone that said he had to learn a whole "new set of skills" (given that he had played a decent level before) and then come match night I'd give him a "slim chance" of scoring, maybe a penalty would be his best hope but would suggest that it "highly unlikely" he'd scoring in open play. Wait, that's almost exactly what I'm saying about this fight.......... what a coincidence.
wonderfullife wrote: » Yeah, all your lame attempts to paint me some sort of fawning sycophant "fanboy" are pathetic and ignorant. I criticize Conor often.
The fact I believe he has a genuine chance of being very competitive against Floyd is my opinion.
I think boxing is a very limited combat sport utilising only 4 weapons. I think people over-play Floyd's defensive genius. I think Floyd gets hit and gets hit clean plenty in almost every fight and the Compubox numbers back that up.
Most importantly, I believe fighting Floyd breaks a lot of other fighters mentally under the pressure of the biggest stage imaginable. Conor thrives under the pressure and will be calm in there.
I think he's got a great shot at proving all of you wrong.
ThinkProgress wrote: » The fact you think he has any realistic chance of doing damage to one of the greatest boxers of all time, in the early rounds (or any rounds)... despite not being a boxer, and never having laced up a pair of gloves in his life for a pro fight... this shows me that you have pretty much zero respect for those 3+ decades that Floyd has spent toiling away to become one of the best in his sport.... How about, I reply to whatever points I choose to on this forum... and you put it in your pipe and smoke it...?? There's a good little fanboy! Thanks for reminding me of my fine work in that AMA.... I am happy that I asked JK some tough questions. It's not my fault if he struggled to give any insightful or intelligent answers. I won't apologise for putting some difficult question to the man. That is what AMA is about... in my interpretation anyway! Perhaps others think it's an opportunity for some a$$ kissing - but that's their unfortunate weakness as person. Not my problem! I thought it was an excellent point, and perfectly illustrates where many McGregor fanboys (such as yourself) are at mentally! Not every personal observation is ad hominem. A lot of people just throw around the "ad hominem" accusation, when they have no intelligent retort to said observation! It's a very convenient - and lazy - way of ignoring a salient point. Many McGregor fanboys are seriously deluded. It really does show the dangers inherent, when people allow their sporting idols to inhabit a place of far greater importance in their life/mind, than is actually healthy or normal. I think the line between reality and illusion, starts to become somewhat blurred for people such as yourselves... (I'm assuming you are probably an adult, right?... It's even more sad to witness, when someone has a fully developed frontal lobe!) :pac: What did it say on that boxing trophy, again?? "Novice"... He was a novice boxing champion, back in 2006... What has he done in the sport of boxing, since 2006, that might help us to elevate him above a mere novice in this sport? And yes, a novice has a great deal to learn in the sport of boxing before you can consider them to be a decent level professional. To even earn the respect, for experts to give you a mere puncher's chance against one of the top guys in the sport. This is a hugely inexperienced, novice boxer... going up against one of the all-time greats. If this was in a heavier weight class, we might be talking about McGregor getting very seriously injured. He might not suffer any serious injuries in this fight... but he will almost certainly get picked apart in one of the most lopsided sporting events you are ever likely to witness in your lifetime!
And don't come back and say the above are not significant as that's not the point at all...
walshb wrote: » Boxing is not new to Conor? In the context of this set up what in hell is that supposed to mean or convey? Seems it's being used to counter/defend Conor's complete no hope in a sport that he is a no hoper in.. I played some leagues tennis in St. Anne's 12 years ago. Screw you, Federer. Your ass is mine!
Sweet Science wrote: » Yes a limited combat sport . There is only 2 things you can use . both your fists . Its a speciality that Floyd has . He can find a way to hit you with his and can find a way to make you miss with yours Its an art . Its a sweet science baby .
walshb wrote: » I played some leagues tennis in St. Anne's 12 years ago. Screw you, Federer. Your ass is mine!
Outlaw Pete wrote: » winning a boxing championship when he was 18?
walshb wrote: » That's right, we're all just posting here for the thanks now.
Look, let's meet half way then. You really are trying to put forward Conor having a logical chance at winning in the first three rds. Fine. That's your right, just like it's others right to call it ridiculous. I am in this camp, but no need for you to take that view harshly I believe you are, and this is what has led to this back and forth sniping...
walshb wrote: » With that crucifying left hand he doesn't need one!
HigginsJ wrote: » McGregor winning a boxing championship, you missed a calling with the Daily Mail on that one!!
normanoffside wrote: » This whole thread reminds me of this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nH9YmjphkAU
wonderfullife wrote: » I think people over-play Floyd's defensive genius. I think Floyd gets hit and gets hit clean plenty in almost every fight and the Compubox numbers back that up.
